Comments on: Obama Signs Spending Bill – With Objections

[abbe91]

"The President of the United States does not have line item veto power. This would be a good reason to give it to him....
Posted by clcmm36 at 8:07 AM : Mar 12, 2009"

The line item veto is a slippery slope. It would have been dangerous under Bush and I don't think it would be wise to have it anytime in the future.

[realnews12]

His actual quote, the exact words out of his mouth were: "when I am president I will go line by line to eliminate government waste".

Posted by jgg00000008 at 8:04 AM : Mar 12, 2009

Earmarks are not equivalent to "government waste". Some are wasteful, while some represent worthy and necessary projects. They do NOT add spending to the bill, they simply earmark part of the funds already allocated in the bill to a particular project. An example would be: say the bill allocates X dollars for school improvement under the Education Department. An earmark might say that small fraction Y of those X dollars should be spent on improving the science labs of the schools in Brooklyn and the Bronx.

[clcmm36]

The President of the United States does not have line item veto power. This would be a good reason to give it to him....

Shelby (AL) $114,484,250
Bond (MO) $85,691,491
Cochran (MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (AK) $74,000,750
Inhofe (OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (KY) $51,186,000
Specter (PA) $25,320,000
Martinez (FL) $18,758,000
Voinovich (OH) $13,501,000
Brownback (KS) $12,020,048
Gregg (NH) $10,028,000
Hutchison (TX) $9,851,000
Graham (SC) $9,545,000
Alexander (TN) $5,402,000
Kyl (AZ) $4,950,000
Wicker (MS) $4,324,000
Thune (SD) $4,275,000
Chambliss (GA) $4,253,000
Sessions (AL) $4,250,500
Vitter (LA) $4,034,000
Barrasso (WY) $2,713,000
Cornyn (TX) $2,518,000
Roberts (KS) $2,202,000
Enzi (WY) $1,725,000
Isakson (GA) $1,425,000
Burr (NC) $1,284,000

[clcmm36]

Republican earmarks....

Shelby (AL) $114,484,250
Bond (MO) $85,691,491
Cochran (MS) $75,908,475
Murkowski (AK) $74,000,750
Inhofe (OK) $53,133,500
McConnell (KY) $51,186,000
Specter (PA) $25,320,000
Martinez (FL) $18,758,000
Voinovich (OH) $13,501,000
Brownback (KS) $12,020,048
Gregg (NH) $10,028,000
Hutchison (TX) $9,851,000
Graham (SC) $9,545,000
Alexander (TN) $5,402,000
Kyl (AZ) $4,950,000
Wicker (MS) $4,324,000
Thune (SD) $4,275,000
Chambliss (GA) $4,253,000
Sessions (AL) $4,250,500
Vitter (LA) $4,034,000
Barrasso (WY) $2,713,000
Cornyn (TX) $2,518,000
Roberts (KS) $2,202,000
Enzi (WY) $1,725,000
Isakson (GA) $1,425,000
Burr (NC) $1,284,000

[rhs648]

Well folks, according to an article in today's Washington Post, a group of democratic congressmen are proposing that employer sponsored health benefits be taxed as income. The article said that a worker;'s family benefits average $9,000 per year. The money would be used to help fund universa; health care. Don't take my word, read the article. So, we get a $13 per week tax break and then pay taxes on $9,000 additional income per year. Sounds like more funny math.

[realnews12]

If Obama promised to get rid of them and he doesn't or balks (because I'm busy) then he failed a campaign promise, pure and simple. Don't make a promise based on your schedule!

Posted by dkhorse11 at 12:13 AM : Mar 12, 2009

Candidate Obama NEVER promised to "get rid of all earmarks". That was John McCain!

[endurorob]

What he said both during the campaign and yesterday is that he doesn't want to eliminate earmarks entirely(some are actually beneficial) but wants to reform the process so that there's greater transparency and less abuse. He's explained what that means. Greater transparency means that Reps can't sneak this stuff in anonymously. He proposed during the campaign and again yesterday to identify the sponsers of the earmarks, to open up the bidding for the projects so that those who propose them don't award no-contract bids. That will eliminate the motive to put in projects that Uncle frank's construction company can get the contract for. Publishing the sponser means that if we have to pay for grass on the Washington mall we know that it's the nancy Pelosi Memorial Lawn.

You're not going to change Washington by getting the pigs to violuntarily empty the trough. You're going to have to shine the tv cameras on the trough first.
Posted by mcliar at 7:15 AM : Mar 12, 2009


I know what he said yesterday and I kniow during the campaign that he wanted to ban earmarks. The fact is that these budget are supposed to be to fund what is necessary to run the government. All these other projects are supposed to be funded independently from the budget. There should be zero earmarks in the budget or any other bill. If these senetors want to fund projects in their states they need to ask for the money independent of other bills. Maybe then we could see a decrease in this obsurd spending by the government. As far as transperency goes there would have not been a better time than now to start it but the Obama admin wants to put it off. Wonder why.

[endurorob]

He was a Senator and could have put his own earmarks in here as many from both parties did, but he didn't.

Mcliar you are mistaken. There are earmarks in this bill that were co-sponsered by Obama. They have in the past couple of weeks removed his name from them but that doesn't change the fact that they were inserted by him.

[endurorob]

Fine, then blame Obama and not the reps who put the earmarks in the omnibus bill which has to be passed for the government to operate. This budget wasn't finalized until this session of Congress, but I'm not going to accept or deny your conspiracy theory because it doesn't matter to the larger picture of ending this practice once and for all.

I know that I can expect all of you who are so outraged to support the earmark reforms that will shine a light on this practice that hasn't been shined before because you want to improve the situation and not just ***** about something you're doing nothing about.

Please don't spare your outrage with any politicians of either party who drag their feet at accepting reforms to the process.
Posted by mcliar at 7:00 AM : Mar 12, 2009

i blame all who want to waste my hard earned money. Obama will take the brunt of the blame though because one of his campign items was to ban earmarks and now he signs a bill that contains nearly 8K earmarks and changes his tune that earmarks are now a good thing. He can try to lay this off as last years business all he wants but he signed it, it is his and he needs to take full responsibility for the waste.

[withad-2009]

Someone correct me if I am wrong but weren't the Dems. in control of the house and senate for the last two years and wasn't Obama a "voting" senator when "Last Years" budget was written. Seems to me he is dodging another bullet by claiming it it was "inherited". He campaigned for two years about doing away with "earmarks" and "pork" but I'll let this bunch go through because it's not mine. Bullcrap.